Uniting Kingdom to Atonement: Vineyardizing the Relationship of Cross and Crown

The Vineyard movement is widely known for embracing kingdom theology as it’s theological center. We look to King and Kingdom as foundational to our beliefs and practices. Jesus announced the inbreaking of his kingdom and then spent his public ministry focused on proclaiming and demonstrating the power and presence of God in relation to that kingdom. As followers of Jesus, we believe we are called to continue his words and works.

But what does the Vineyard believe about the atonement? Which model or metaphor is the Vineyard approach? Should we embrace the substitutionary view, as advanced by those connected to the Reformed tradition? Or would the Christus Victor model, promoted by people like Greg Boyd, be a better fit? And what about the Healing model, as Bruce Reichenbach suggests. What about Joel B. Green’s Kaleidoscopic view?

The answer to each of these questions, I believe, should be “Yes.” In fact, that’s one of the strengths of the Kaleidoscopic view, which seeks to emphasize all of the models as important. As Green states, “no one model or metaphor will do when it comes to the task of articulating and proclaiming that significance [of the atonement] in the world today.” We need the substitutionary model, the healing approach, and the Christus Victor emphasis if we want to do justice to atonement theory. All of the metaphors are articulated in the Scriptures and have found advocates throughout church history. Each provides helpful theological insights into the powerful complexities found in the Cross of Christ.

The Mistake of Reactionary Theology

One of the challenges we face in the Vineyard is to keep the tensions. My friend Michael Gatlin, National Coordinator for Multiply Vineyard, talks about “keeping the tensions” as a Vineyard value. One might say it is our sine qua non!

Keeping the tension within atonement theology seems to imply keeping the tensions found within both emphasizing and applying our understanding of the Cross. There is a tendency for some pastors, leaders, and thinkers to find aspects of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) as so problematic that they swing to the point of rejecting all forms of substitution in an attempt to make, for example, Christus Victor the only model that receives attention.

I think this is a huge mistake. Each atonement model provides a necessary lens in order to comprehend the beauty and nature of Jesus’ work on the Cross. Reactionary theology is far to often guilty of ignoring crucial elements of one view in an effort to bring another view to the forefront. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So again, I suggest we embrace every model and metaphor that is found in Scripture and, as Gatlin has suggested, keep the tensions. We need substitution. We need Christus Victor. We need healing. And we’d be wise to follow Green’s advice of integrating them all.

Yet while I am all for embracing all biblical metaphors, I think there is a powerful atonement theory that fares well with Vineyard kingdom theology.

Toward Uniting the Kingdom to the Atonement

As far as I can tell, the primary way in which the Vineyard roots its emphasis on “signs and wonders” and “doing the stuff” is through a robust understanding of the “now and not yet” approach to the kingdom of God. We believe that healing, and prophecy, and tongues, and deliverance, and all other expressions of the charismata occur because the kingdom of God is seen breaking into our time and space, as was inaugurated by Jesus in the 1st century.

But what about rooting our understanding of “doing the stuff” in our understanding of the Cross? The Vineyard, and other advocates of the Third Wave, appear to have avoided exploring or emphasizing a rich connection between “signs and wonders” and an atonement theory because they have sought to avoid making the same mistakes as early Pentecostals and advocates of Word of Faith theology.

The issue boils down to whether healing (and other aspects of the charismata can be attached here, I think) is guaranteed by or provided for through the atonement. These may appear to be subtle differences, but they make a huge impact on praxis. If healing is guaranteed in the atonement, the only possible response to someone not being healed is that there is lack of faith or sin. If healing is provided for in the atonement, there’s room to explore the “not yet” nature of the kingdom. At least that’s what the Third Wave has argued in the past.

But the Third Wave, and the Vineyard by and large, has generally been less articulate in exploring the relationship between atonement and kingdom. When we discuss the kingdom of God, we rarely spend much time exploring the ways in which our understanding of the kingdom might benefit a bit from, not to mention build upon, aspects of the atonement. Don’t misunderstand me, the Vineyard loves the Cross of Christ and we value the reality of Jesus’ death in all that we say and do. Yet we’ve not been as articulate in how and why the kingdom and the Cross should be united. For example, in Morphew’s Breakthrough, the atonement isn’t a primary focus and it doesn’t appear to be a major focus in almost any of the Vineyard books that I have on my shelves or in my Kindle library. And believe me, I’ve checked!

I believe we, in the Vineyard, need to really explore this a bit more because it can make a difference in both our theology and our praxis. And while I’m a fan of Tim Chester’s Crown of Thorns, I think he overlooks the value and importance of kingdom theology in relation to “signs and wonders” as expressions of pushing back against the kingdom of darkness. The Vineyard could really provide a helpful way of articulating the ongoing nature of both inaugurated eschatology and the benefits of Jesus’ victory through the Cross and Resurrection!

And I’m speaking specifically about uniting our, the Vineyard’s, kingdom theology to crucial aspects of Christus Victor, the atonement approach that articulates the clash of God’s kingdom with Satan’s kingdom:

“… the Christus Victor paradigm understands the work of Christ primarily in terms of his conflict with and triumph over those elements of the kingdom of darkness that, according to the New Testament, hold humanity in their clutches, that is, Satan and his demonic hosts, the sin power, death, and even, particularly in its cruse elements, the law. In addition, the harrowing of hell motif has fed into the Christus Victor theme from ancient times.” (The Nature of the Atonement, 12)

Since Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and the Cross (and Resurrection) is where the defeat of Satan’s kingdom is powerfully stated, might we want to unite our theology of the kingdom with our theology of the atonement? I believe so.

In fact, while John Wimber appears to primarily articulate in his teachings on the atonement a substitutionary approach, elsewhere he quite clearly understood that the Jesus came to “plunder” the “strong man.” Wimber taught:

“In all these battles, Jesus was, and continues to be the victor. In Matthew 12:22-31, Jesus makes it clear that the struggle in which He is engaged is not a civil war within a kingdom. It is rather a battle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil. The strong man, Satan, is bound so that his house (Satan’s kingdom) may be plundered. Satan’s power is curbed, but he was not rendered completely powerless (see Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33; Luke 22:3).” (The Way In Is the Way On, Kindle Locations 1617-1621).

The natural question arises as, How did Jesus plunder Satan’s house? I think I’m on good ground when I suggest that Wimber and the vast majority of Christians would respond by answering, At the Cross and Resurrection.

Jesus was the victor. The clash between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of heaven was brought to a decisive end when Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Hmmm. That sounds a lot like the Christus Victor approach to the atonement, as well as our understanding of inaugurated eschatology. And because of this approach and understanding of the Cross, we might follow Greg Boyd’s advice:

“Jesus thus gives to all who will in faith receive it his authority to break down the gates of hell and take back fro the Father what the enemy had stolen, just as he himself had done (Mt 16:18). Now that the strong man has been bound, it is a task we can and must successfully carry out. In doing all this, we the church are further expanding the kingdom of God against the kingdom of Satan, and laying the basis for the Lord’s return when the full manifestation of Christ’s victory, and of Satan’s defeat, will occur.” (God at War, 214).

So while we faithfully embrace all that God has for us, especially that which is revealed in Scripture, I suggest we explore more fully how the Cross and the kingdom intersect, influence each other, and inform how the two topics should shape the way that we “do the stuff” by continuing Jesus’ ministry as the “word worker” par excellent.

What do you think?

How do you see the Cross informing the kingdom and the kingdom informing the Cross?

Why is keeping the tension(s) so important?

How does Christus Victor influence an approach to prophecy and tongues?

Where do we go from here?

P.S. – I think you may enjoy James Bryan Smith’s The Kingdom and the Crossas a spiritually formative way of engaging some of the issues related to this subject. I would also like to thank Aaron McCarter, lead pastor of Maryville Vineyard Church, for inspiring me to actually write some of these ideas down!

Comments

comments

11 Comments

Kevin Ross
on November 18, 2015 at 3:43 pm

I enjoyed this post because it is the first time I have read someone else articulating my view. I know that sounds bad, but it is what it is!

The connection between the cross and the kingdom is explicit in Rev 5, especially in vas 9 and 10, where, in true Vineyard fashion, they sang a new song directly connecting the cross to the kingdom. It is a song about the Lamb who is the Lion, who made the kingdom, and made us to be kings and priests.

The song explicitly links the random paid and the victory won with the victorious Lamb that was slain for us.

Somebody needs to write that song!

Kevin Ross
on November 18, 2015 at 3:45 pm

random -> “ransom”

Aaron McCarter
on November 18, 2015 at 4:00 pm

Really helpful stuff, Luke! As Phil Strout is leading us to go back to the ‘main and the plain’ of declaring the gospel and calling people to repentance, I think some may be hesitant because our atonement language is either missing or conflicting. I’m hoping for more stuff like this to help us grow in boldness, as we stick to our center–which, as you said, is in the tension! thanks, friend!

Joel Seymour
on November 18, 2015 at 4:17 pm

In 2000 I attended a Vineyard retreat for senior pastors under age 35. Todd Hunter hosted us along with Stan Grenz, Brian McClaren & Dallas Willard. Dallas did a session on the atonement that was incredible. He covered all the major theories of atonement from the past 2000 years. I remember my big take away from that session was Dallas saying ‘don’t confuse the theory of atonement with the fact of atonement’. He challenged us to not be so beholden to one theory that we called someone a heretic who espoused one of the other theories of atonement. It was eye opening…

Joshua Hopping
on November 18, 2015 at 6:12 pm

The core point of an inaugurated eschatology view of the Kingdom of God is that the Age to Come has broken in, is breaking in, and one day will fully break into this Present Evil Age. This understanding of the Kingdom can and should then influence how we see the atonement and its impact on us. As in, we are saved, being saved and one day be saved. Historically folks have separated all three of these parts of the atonement into three pieces: regeneration (we are saved), sanctification (we are being saved) and glorification (we will one day be saved). By doing this, I believe we have reduced the fullness of God’s work on the cross and its impact on us – i.e. we have broken the here and not yet tension of the Kingdom.

One of the weakness with most (if not all) views of the atonement is that they promote the reeducation view of salvation. In that, they don’t fully allows for the process of being re-made, re-generated, healed, sozo, in the image of Jesus. Rather they focus on trying to explain the onetime regeneration concept without the sanctification and glorification parts. PSA, for example, focus on the legal aspect of receiving God’s grace while Christus Victor and its close cousin, the ransom view, focus on being delivered from evil. Others have similar weakness….

With all this say, I do believe that the Christus Victor does a better job of fitting within the inaugurated eschatology view of Kingdom Theology – and not just because of the war motif you mention in conjunction with signs and wonders. Rather I think it fits in that it carries within itself an echo of the Exodus, an event which Jesus himself was recreating on a global scale. The echo is that the forces of evil are destroyed, giving us slaves the freedom for a new life (regeneration). However just like God gave the Israelites the Law to guide and train them for their new life of freedom, we are allow God to work in our lives so that we become more like Jesus (sanctification). One day when the Age to Come is here in its fullness, we will experience the final victory (glorification).

In thinking about Vineyard folks who are talking about the above inaugurated atonement (can I coin that term?), I would list Derek Morphew and Bill Jackson as my top two authors who reference the concept or, at the very least, provide the framework on which one can build. Morphew, why he doesn’t deal with it in Breakthrough, does mention the concept in several of his lectures/sermons. He may even reference it in some of his other books…but I can’t remember exactly. Bill Jackson explores the war motif of Christus Victor within his books and papers (in volume 1 of his church history books, he states that tracing the war motif of the inaugurated eschatology in history as one of his prime motivators in writing the books).

I know within my own Kingdom Theology book (publication date unknown at this time), I use the Christus Victor / war motif as a skeleton on which I explore the Kingship of God throughout the Scriptures. I also include a section about inaugurated atonement as I do believe it is an important part of Kingdom Theology.

He noted that Ladd essentially left atonement out of The Presence of the Future and Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God, which were/are so influential in Vineyard theology. Because of this, the topic has not been a prominent theme.

Maybe I can get Andrew to comment in here some more. It was a good point, especially given that I have found the same to be true.